CURRENT AFFAIRS | 18 JUNE 2026
A suspected militant was killed in an alleged encounter in Manipur’s Churachandpur district as security operations intensified, with the Assam Rifles and the Army mounting a joint operation against suspected insurgents. An AK-47 rifle, magazines, ammunition and other items were reportedly recovered from the site. While the Manipur police described the deceased as a “suspected militant”, the Kuki-Zo group to which he is alleged to have belonged insisted he was a civilian and demanded a judicial inquiry, alleging a “fake encounter”. The conflicting accounts have once again foregrounded the legal architecture that governs armed-forces operations in India’s troubled regions — the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, or AFSPA.
AFSPA grants extraordinary powers to the armed forces in areas declared “disturbed”. Once a region is so notified — by the Centre or the Governor under Section 3 of the Act — security personnel may, among other things, use force (including causing death) against persons acting in contravention of law, arrest without warrant, and search premises without a warrant. The most contested feature is Section 6, which bars prosecution of personnel acting under the Act without the prior sanction of the Central Government. Critics argue this fosters a climate of impunity, particularly around alleged extra-judicial or “fake” encounters; defenders contend it shields soldiers operating in near-war conditions from vexatious litigation.
The jurisprudence is layered and crucial for a law aspirant. In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998), a Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA but read into it a set of binding “do’s and don’ts” and held that the power to declare an area disturbed is not unfettered. The decisive shift came in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016), where the Supreme Court held that the use of “excessive or retaliatory force” is not permissible even in a disturbed area, and crucially that the Section 6 sanction requirement does NOT bar investigation into alleged fake encounters — the immunity is for bona fide acts, not for criminal ones. Earlier, in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the Court had laid down a detailed 16-point set of guidelines mandating independent investigation of every encounter death.
All of this sits within the protective embrace of Article 21, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to “procedure established by law” — a phrase the Court has read, since Maneka Gandhi, to require that the procedure be just, fair and reasonable. The right to life therefore demands that every alleged encounter death be independently examined; an unverified police claim of “militancy” cannot, by itself, defeat the constitutional guarantee. For the CLAT aspirant, the Manipur episode crystallises the perennial tension between national-security imperatives and fundamental rights, and the careful judicial calibration that AFSPA jurisprudence represents.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 grants security forces special powers in “disturbed areas” notified under Section 3, while Section 6 bars prosecution of personnel without prior Central sanction. Article 21 protects the right to life, requiring just, fair and reasonable procedure. In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998), AFSPA was upheld with binding do’s and don’ts. EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016) held there is no blanket immunity for fake encounters and that Section 6 does not bar investigation. PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) laid down 16-point encounter-death guidelines.
AFSPA and encounter-killing jurisprudence are high-frequency CLAT Legal Reasoning material. Expect MCQs distinguishing the Section 3 disturbed-area notification from the Section 6 sanction bar, and on which judgments (Naga People’s Movement 1998, EEVFAM 2016, PUCL 2014) shaped the law. Passages often test the proposition that immunity protects bona fide acts but not criminal ones, framed against Article 21.
| Statute | Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 |
| State in news | Manipur (Churachandpur district) |
| Disturbed-area power | Section 3 — notification by Centre/Governor |
| Sanction bar | Section 6 — no prosecution without Central sanction |
| Key case (validity) | Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. UoI (1998) |
| Key case (no immunity for fake encounters) | EEVFAM v. UoI (2016) |
“AFSPA = Armed Forces Special Powers in disturbed Areas; EEVFAM = no immunity for fake encounters.” Pair them: AFSPA empowers forces in notified Areas, but EEVFAM (2016) confirms Section 6 immunity covers bona fide acts only — fake encounters can still be investigated.
Why This Matters for CLAT: AFSPA jurisprudence is a model of how courts balance security and rights — the exact tension CLAT 2027 loves to dramatise. By learning to separate the Section 3 notification power from the Section 6 sanction bar, and to apply EEVFAM’s rule that immunity shields only bona fide acts, you acquire a reusable template for any national-security-versus-Article-21 passage the paper sets.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
